Imagine watching a movie. You know every line of the movie by heart. Does this mean the actors had no free will?

You mean the actors who had to follow a script, or the characters who don't even exist but perform the same actions over and over again, no matter how many times you watch a movie?

Then think of a sports game you already know the outcome of. Or a song by a band.

But god is not just a passive spectator of life on earth, is he? God has the PLAN. God is in control--he keeps every tiny cell factory bustling along making life happen nanosecond by nanosecond. He puts every atom and microbe where it is supposed to be so everything happens just the way it should. If god is just standing around watching and not interfering, he is a deist god, not the Jehovah God of the Christian bible.

Jehovah God wrote, produced and directed the movie, down to every word each actor says. He orchestrated the sports event and was in charge of every move and play, even controlled the rays of the sun getting in a player's eyes causing him to trip and get injured and carried off the field. He wrote the song and is making all the band members sing it the way he wants to hear it sung.

Are you going to try arguing that it is a part of god's plan to not be in complete control of earth? In other words, can god can choose to not be god? If you try that, you realize you have just gone deist on us....

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

a sports game that has already been played? If the outcome is known, why is the game played?

There's a sci-fi novelette about that; "The Last Superbowl" about the death of organized sports when computer models can exactly predict the outcome.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

^^ I know next to nothing about American Football, but I doubt any computer could have predicted yesterdays result (based on the fact the one person in my office who watched the game said it was a huge upset)

Then think of a sports game you already know the outcome of. Or a song by a band.

The problem is that none of these examples really work for what you're trying to say. The actors in a play are constrained by the script and the director, for example. They aren't exercising "free will". Indeed, in order for the play to be a success, they can't exercise it. It's the same way with a sports game, a band, or probably any other example you can think of. In order for it to be a success, the actions of the participants have to be constrained, generally fairly sharply. A sports team follows a strategy, for example, in order to maximize their chances of success. A band has to play a composition and follow the conductor's directions.

Imagine a band which is playing some classical song, say from Mozart or Bach, and then you have one of them segue into, say, heavy metal. Chances are, it would sound awful, because the two kinds of music wouldn't mesh well. In short, you can't have free will in any of those examples, because it would result in a huge mess and ad hoc after ad hoc solution to try to keep things on course (and most likely failing).

There's a movie called Wreck-It Ralph which covers this. In it, video game characters are intelligent, have their own personalities, and so on - in other words, there's a whole world inside the games which human beings don't know about. But in order for the games to be a success, the characters have to act exactly as if they have no choice but to act as they're programmed to. If they run off and do their own thing, their game is likely to get its plug pulled, causing every other resident to either be homeless or die with their game.

That's what you're trying to argue for - the paradox of having free will and being unable to exercise it without running the very real risk of screwing things up. If your belief is right, then we're way worse off than those video game characters; at least they get the time during which the arcade is closed to do what they want to do (even if they have to have some common-sense restrictions, such as not doing something that could get them killed outside their game).

No, according to you, we're stuck in an MMO, which is on all the time, with countless demons (and one god) - the players - constantly trying to manipulate the world to get humans (the characters of this MMO analogy) to join their own particular faction. And if we happen to choose the wrong one, then we eventually suffer for it, pretty much forever. And there's no way to tell which one is wrong, because all we have to go on is what other humans, inside the MMO, claim is true.

Can you see why this just isn't all that convincing to people who don't already buy into it?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

No, according to you, we're stuck in an MMO, which is on all the time, with countless demons (and one god) - the players - constantly trying to manipulate the world to get humans (the characters of this MMO analogy) to join their own particular faction. And if we happen to choose the wrong one, then we eventually suffer for it, pretty much forever. And there's no way to tell which one is wrong, because all we have to go on is what other humans, inside the MMO, claim is true.

Can you see why this just isn't all that convincing to people who don't already buy into it?

And, as I mentioned before, and Nogodsforme restated much more eloquently, all this still has to line up with god's alleged PLAN. Which means, basically, that while all the evil in the world is a result of sin/demonic influences, it is also somehow part of a plan for a person's life. A deranged gunman shooting up a school full of kids is, on the one hand, evidence of a world turning away from god, yet the parents of these same kids are comforted with the belief that it is all part of god's ineffable plan, and somehow good will come of it.

I'm sure you would agree that not all heavy metal would mesh well with classical, especially if it's due to someone deciding to start playing it without even mentioning it to the other musicians in the band.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I'm sure you would agree that not all heavy metal would mesh well with classical, especially if it's due to someone deciding to start playing it without even mentioning it to the other musicians in the band.

Heck, you don't even need to mix genres...If one or two of the musicians decided they were tired of the piece they were supposed to be playing and struck off into another one at random, it would take a coincidence of a "miraculous" scale to make it sound like anything but an utter mess.

I'm sure you would agree that not all heavy metal would mesh well with classical, especially if it's due to someone deciding to start playing it without even mentioning it to the other musicians in the band.

Perhaps but that's not what you said. Perhaps if you used bluegrass and metal...there are many genres within metal that classical music meshes well with but that's probably true for a lot of music.

I'm sure you would agree that not all heavy metal would mesh well with classical, especially if it's due to someone deciding to start playing it without even mentioning it to the other musicians in the band.

Heck, you don't even need to mix genres...If one or two of the musicians decided they were tired of the piece they were supposed to be playing and struck off into another one at random, it would take a coincidence of a "miraculous" scale to make it sound like anything but an utter mess.

I don't think one could know that without first knowing someone has done that and it didn't come out well. Look at Buddy Holly: he wanted to use composition in his rock music and people were against it because they didn't believe it'd sound good but he did it anyway and it sounded good.

If someone just did that on the fly unless one can observe it, I can't see how one can prejudge something they think wouldn't be good because of opposition to the genres.

I don't think one could know that without first knowing someone has done that and it didn't come out well. Look at Buddy Holly: he wanted to use composition in his rock music and people were against it because they didn't believe it'd sound good but he did it anyway and it sounded good.

If someone just did that on the fly unless one can observe it, I can't see how one can prejudge something they think wouldn't be good because of opposition to the genres.

I mean, I've heard rap/country music and it wasn't that bad.

-Nam

Yeah, I agree. It's possible to mix quite a few things together which seem as though they wouldn't work, yet they end up meshing brilliantly. But that takes a purposeful composition of the elements, not just playing one piece on top of another. Unless there is a really well considered juxtaposition of rhythm, harmonics, counterpoint, etc, in which case you'd have a true blend of the disparate elements in a cohesive whole, what you would end up with, barring a major stroke of luck, would be cacophonous. I'm just talking about part the orchestra playing one piece, and the rest getting bored and beginning to play the next piece halfway through the first performance.

God's plan is for us to have free will. Since God knows the future but we don't, all of our choices are based on free will. God already knows the whole movie but we do not.

There are two colossal problems with that, even assuming that your supposition holds.

Firstly, it does not absolve your god of any responsibility for what people choose. I'm not going to argue determinism here, but in general terms, any decision-point we reach is the result of prior decisions, made by us, by others, by thousands and millions of people before we were ever born. Our upbringing, our environment, our history, ALL will influence how much "free will" we can exercise at any given moment.

Example: a wallet is found on the ground, with $20 in it. In the first example, it is found by a very rich man, brought up in a loving home, taught to be charitable. In the second example, it is found by a homeless person who has not eaten for three days, who comes from a broken and abusive home. I doubt you would make any claim that those two people have exactly the same ability to make the "right" decision.

And so it is for everything. The choices available to us, and the range of options we can display, can all be traced back through history to whatever the starting conditions are - in this case, a no-win situation set up by this god. A TRUE god could have looked forwards through potential history, seen all the possible outcomes and ripple effects, and adjusted his intended initial conditions to allow for the best possible outcomes.

So you are either saying that this is the best possible world there could ever be (in which case heaven is a fantasy that can never exist), or that your god deliberately engineered this world to ensure that there was more evil in it than necessary. Which are you suggesting?

Secondly, why? If your god knows everything, KNEW everything from the very dawn of creation, then what point is there in actually playing it all through? A TRULY loving god would simply envisage it all in his mind, then create into heaven ONLY those souls who "made it" in his imagination. Sinners would never exist - never NEED to exist. No need for hell, no punishment, no need for any person to ever experience anything negative at all.

To use your sports analogy: if you know the result of a game, what NEED is there for the game to have happened in the first place? Aside from the thrill of watching the outcome (and what thrill is there anyway, if you know exactly what happened before you watch the game?), if the results and all the outcomes can be "predicted" with no margin forever, then (in effect) the players could walk out on the pitch, the referee starts the game.....then immediately stops it, and tells the players the score.

Your "god" thought to itself: "hmmm....if I create Eden like this, and mankind like that, then in six thousands years this man will be saved, that man will be damned". He then decided to create Eden exactly the way he originally planned, KNOWING that billions would end up damned, when he COULD (like I said) simply have imagined the whole thing and created ONLY those souls that ended in heaven.

He didn't. He chose the option that would include real suffering and torment. There is no love shown there at all, from the basis that you are using.

If one or two of the musicians decided they were tired of the piece they were supposed to be playing and struck off into another one at random, it would take a coincidence of a "miraculous" scale to make it sound like anything but an utter mess.

Example: a wallet is found on the ground, with $20 in it. In the first example, it is found by a very rich man, brought up in a loving home, taught to be charitable. In the second example, it is found by a homeless person who has not eaten for three days, who comes from a broken and abusive home. I doubt you would make any claim that those two people have exactly the same ability to make the "right" decision.

Except, against all common sense, studies have been shown the rich person is MORE likely to keep it. There are theories as to why, which in light of recent events, sound an awful lot like 'affluenza.'

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Example: a wallet is found on the ground, with $20 in it. In the first example, it is found by a very rich man, brought up in a loving home, taught to be charitable. In the second example, it is found by a homeless person who has not eaten for three days, who comes from a broken and abusive home. I doubt you would make any claim that those two people have exactly the same ability to make the "right" decision.

Except, against all common sense, studies have been shown the rich person is MORE likely to keep it. There are theories as to why, which in light of recent events, sound an awful lot like 'affluenza.'

I would suppose that the poor person might have more empathy, being broke & hungry himself, and the $20 would look like a lot of money to him; not something he could easily deprive another potentially hard-up person of.

The rich man, I don't know. Maybe it would appear to be such a trifle that he could not be bothered to try to find the owner. Maybe acquisitiveness has become so addictive that even an extra $20 gives a little bit of a rush. I would still imagine that the majority of the well-to-do would still at least try to return it.

Perhaps but that's not what you said. Perhaps if you used bluegrass and metal...there are many genres within metal that classical music meshes well with but that's probably true for a lot of music.

Actually, I assumed people would understand my meaning from context - the idea was that it would be someone deciding, mid-performance, to go off and start playing some other piece instead of what they were supposed to be playing. It has nothing at all to do with the specific genres of music; I picked classical and heavy metal at random, essentially.

As you say, you can mix genres. But in order to do it successfully, you have to practice and prepare first, and if there's other performers, they need to be brought on board too so that the sudden change doesn't throw them off.

Does that make my meaning clearer, or should I elaborate more?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Example: a wallet is found on the ground, with $20 in it. In the first example, it is found by a very rich man, brought up in a loving home, taught to be charitable. In the second example, it is found by a homeless person who has not eaten for three days, who comes from a broken and abusive home. I doubt you would make any claim that those two people have exactly the same ability to make the "right" decision.

Except, against all common sense, studies have been shown the rich person is MORE likely to keep it. There are theories as to why, which in light of recent events, sound an awful lot like 'affluenza.'

I would suppose that the poor person might have more empathy, being broke & hungry himself, and the $20 would look like a lot of money to him; not something he could easily deprive another potentially hard-up person of.

The rich man, I don't know. Maybe it would appear to be such a trifle that he could not be bothered to try to find the owner. Maybe acquisitiveness has become so addictive that even an extra $20 gives a little bit of a rush. I would still imagine that the majority of the well-to-do would still at least try to return it.

The Monopoly Experiment was where two people were to play Monopoly, and the rules were altered to where the game was heavily biased towards one player. The one who it was more biased towards was more likely to be agressive and more likely to cheat, the one it was biased against became more passive and more willing to act more friendly/subservient to the other player EVEN THOUGH IT WAS JUST A GAME.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Example: a wallet is found on the ground, with $20 in it. In the first example, it is found by a very rich man, brought up in a loving home, taught to be charitable. In the second example, it is found by a homeless person who has not eaten for three days, who comes from a broken and abusive home. I doubt you would make any claim that those two people have exactly the same ability to make the "right" decision.

Except, against all common sense, studies have been shown the rich person is MORE likely to keep it. There are theories as to why, which in light of recent events, sound an awful lot like 'affluenza.'

I would suppose that the poor person might have more empathy, being broke & hungry himself, and the $20 would look like a lot of money to him; not something he could easily deprive another potentially hard-up person of.

The rich man, I don't know. Maybe it would appear to be such a trifle that he could not be bothered to try to find the owner. Maybe acquisitiveness has become so addictive that even an extra $20 gives a little bit of a rush. I would still imagine that the majority of the well-to-do would still at least try to return it.

I am glad you brought that up. Suppose you saw a 75 year old woman drop a lottery ticket and drive off. You pick up the ticket and win millions. Would you return the ticket or keep the money for yourself? Perhaps you may rationalize and think, "No 75 year old needs millions of dollars. They are on their way out anyway."

But without a God to punish you for your actions, is there harm in keeping the money for yourself? If there's no repercussions, would you do it?Would your decision change if it was a 30 year old who dropped the ticket?

The thing I keep saying is that if you keep doing bad stuff and nothing happens, then what's the point? There is no point. If God isn't real, then you can get off scot free. But if you are thinking about Hell, you just might think twice.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

The Monopoly Experiment was where two people were to play Monopoly, and the rules were altered to where the game was heavily biased towards one player. The one who it was more biased towards was more likely to be agressive and more likely to cheat, the one it was biased against became more passive and more willing to act more friendly/subservient to the other player EVEN THOUGH IT WAS JUST A GAME.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Secondly, why? If your god knows everything, KNEW everything from the very dawn of creation, then what point is there in actually playing it all through? A TRULY loving god would simply envisage it all in his mind, then create into heaven ONLY those souls who "made it" in his imagination. Sinners would never exist - never NEED to exist. No need for hell, no punishment, no need for any person to ever experience anything negative at all.

Sinners also serve a purpose in the world. Everyone is a sinner anyway but that's beside the point. Sinners can save people's lives too. Plus, without the sinners the term "good" would have no meaning. If everyone was "good" then it's meaningless. if a word can mean anything, then it means nothing. This is why we are against gay marriage because if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. If gays can marry, then why not brothers and sisters? Why not moms and sons? fathers and daughters? people and chairs? people and dogs? people and horses? people and toasters?

You see what a mess it becomes when we let marriage mean anything? It means nothing. Pretty soon people who engage in incest will say they are being oppressed. Then people into bestiality will say they are being oppressed.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. period. End of discussion. Not this willy-nilly anything goes marry whatever/whoever you want.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 12:30:54 PM by skeptic54768 »

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Who said there are no repercussions? Just because there are no infinite repercussions doesn't mean there aren't finite ones. And the fact that you appear to need infinite punishment to be a decent human being says a lot about you.

This is why we are against gay marriage because if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.<snip>Marriage is between a man and a woman. period. End of discussion. Not this willy-nilly anything goes marry whatever/whoever you want.

Where is your source for that definition of marriage? Why shouldn't non-heterosexuals be allowed to marry who they want, within certain boundaries? What gives you the right to deny us (yes, I am non-heterosexual; bisexual to be precise) that right? That's right, nothing. You have no right or argument against homosexual marriage.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Sinners also serve a purpose in the world. Everyone is a sinner anyway but that's beside the point. Sinners can save people's lives too. Plus, without the sinners the term "good" would have no meaning. If everyone was "good" then it's meaningless. if a word can mean anything, then it means nothing.

You keep making this god entity you talk about sound worse and worse. It's as if god created the whole of reality chalk full of sinners and evil just so he could have his own comparison point to call himself 'good'.

Quote

This is why we are against gay marriage because if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. If gays can marry, then why not brothers and sisters? Why not moms and sons? fathers and daughters? people and chairs? people and dogs? people and horses? people and toasters?

You see what a mess it becomes when we let marriage mean anything? It means nothing. Pretty soon people who engage in incest will say they are being oppressed. Then people into bestiality will say they are being oppressed.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. period. End of discussion. Not this willy-nilly anything goes marry whatever/whoever you want.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Where is your source for that definition of marriage? Why shouldn't non-heterosexuals be allowed to marry who they want, within certain boundaries? What gives you the right to deny us (yes, I am non-heterosexual; bisexual to be precise) that right? That's right, nothing. You have no right or argument against homosexual marriage.

skeptic54768 -

Maybe you could clear things up a bit - could you provide the definition of the word 'marriage'?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Secondly, why? If your god knows everything, KNEW everything from the very dawn of creation, then what point is there in actually playing it all through? A TRULY loving god would simply envisage it all in his mind, then create into heaven ONLY those souls who "made it" in his imagination. Sinners would never exist - never NEED to exist. No need for hell, no punishment, no need for any person to ever experience anything negative at all.

Sinners also serve a purpose in the world. Everyone is a sinner anyway but that's beside the point. Sinners can save people's lives too. Plus, without the sinners the term "good" would have no meaning. If everyone was "good" then it's meaningless. if a word can mean anything, then it means nothing. This is why we are against gay marriage because if marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. If gays can marry, then why not brothers and sisters? Why not moms and sons? fathers and daughters? people and chairs? people and dogs? people and horses? people and toasters?

You see what a mess it becomes when we let marriage mean anything? It means nothing. Pretty soon people who engage in incest will say they are being oppressed. Then people into bestiality will say they are being oppressed.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. period. End of discussion. Not this willy-nilly anything goes marry whatever/whoever you want.

I get the impression you do not believe gay marriage is a good thing. As one theist to another, should Leviticus 20:13 be applied in this day and age?

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." (NRSV translation)

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Who said there are no repercussions? Just because there are no infinite repercussions doesn't mean there aren't finite ones. And the fact that you appear to need infinite punishment to be a decent human being says a lot about you.